Wednesday, October 31, 2007

Two years... where have they gone...

I mean that literally. I've no idea where I left the past two years of my life. I've misplaced them somewhere. I'll have to check the attic.

On a completely unrelated note, it's amazing how much nothing one can fit into so much time. It's like trying to cram a thumbtack into a refrigerator box.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Happy Halloween!




Happy Halloween!

And if that's not scary enough for ye, just consider this: I've been blogging fer two whole years now! YEAY!

Tuesday, October 23, 2007

Life


Eat it before it eats you.

Friday, October 19, 2007

Martinique


It's a small French island in the Carribean. I just spent two hours on Thursday reading about Martinique. Why? Class was boring, so while they were all spreading sheets or something, I dedicated my time to cramming as much information about this French anomaly into my head as possible. I wish I had time like this all the time. Wait, no, that would be boring. But visiting Martinique would be cool. Having this kind of time on a Martinique beach would be doubly cool.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

If only...



yeah...that'd be sweet. I feel like some orange juice, anyone got a fork?

Monday, October 15, 2007

Blog Action Day

Today is blog action day, and, being a blogger, I feel somewhat obligated to participate.
So let's talk environment.
I've grown rather fond of the world I live in. You won't catch me littering, dumping oil down storm drains, or leaving lights on around the house.
I recycle my newspapers, compost my lawnmower clippings, and take Trax as often as time allows.
Do I consider my life to be environmentally sound? No. I don't think I'm an environmentalist by any means. But I seem to remember a Trivial Pursuit question that claimed that 98% of a surveyed population considered themselves to be environmentally conservative. In other words, it's like being Christian - if I perceive that I'm better than 50% of my neighbors, I must be going to heaven.
Let's just lay out a few things: I don't think that not planning enough time to take Trax to school rather than driving makes me a 'environmentally unsound' person. I don't think that the difference between the carbon emissions of an SUV and a Corolla are going to persuade me that buying the Corolla is a better idea. Were I to buy a hybrid, it would be an economic decision, so until buying a fossil-fueled vehicle becomes much more expensive and inconvenient than replacing battery cells every few years, you'll see me in the former.
I believe that humans are having somewhat of an impact on the environment via their pollution, but that not all the blame of the rise in both atmospheric and oceanic temperatures can be assigned squarely to carbon emissions. Part of it is a catch-22 with the ocean - the ocean can retain larger amounts of CO2 the cooler it is. When the ocean warms, large amounts of CO2 are released. If CO2 is cause for the greenhouse effect as much as been hyped about, then that would cause further warming of the ocean, more CO2 released, and so forth. I'm getting off track, what I'm trying to say is that I don't think human carbon emissions are as responsible for global warming as some would like you to believe.
I think exempting China and India from Kyoto protocols because they classify as a different kind of nation is a little ridiculous. Especially the role China has played. It claims that while it is increasing greenhouse emissions at an exorbitant rate, it's ok because its' per capita emission is remaining relatively low. But I think to make a fair protocol, one would have to examine the per capita benefit of increased greenhouse gases, and determine the target carbon emission rate on a country's potential to increase the benefit per capita of its carbon emissions. Which I would argue are very low for China. I highly doubt that China will sign any binding policy toward the reduction of gas emissions at any time. I agree with the US Senate's reasoning behind not signing a policy that has no binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized countries, especially when such protocols have the potential of placing the US in economic peril. The selling and trading of carbon offsets is ridiculous and unfair to such countries as cannot afford to meet their assigned protocol reduction, but lack the resources to buy offsets - stated realizing that the US probably could afford to buy such offsets as it needed to exceed its' carbon emissions target. The idea of the protocol is great, I would like to work toward reducing such a hazard if it has such a potential as claimed, but this isn't the way to go about it.


In other words, I like to do what I can, but doubt that spreading hysteria is necessary.

Monday, October 01, 2007

Celebration!

Whoever is the next to post a comment on my blog will leave the 500th comment I've received. And go.